18 réponses à ce sujet

[Gervaise]

In the past we have rarely been asked to pass moral judgements in our choices.   The beauty of them has been that whilst you could make a moral judgement if you wished, you could equally make the choice for practical reasons or desire for revenge or simply because it seemed like a good idea at the time.   This gave a degree of flexibility to how you played your character and could differ your decision each time you played, whilst still being able to justify it to the way you had been playing them.    Then we could all come to the forums and argue over the validity of our decision.

 

However, the Solas choice has been bugging me because there is none of that flexibility of how your interpret the decision.   Quite clearly you are asked to make a moral judgement on the character (play god in other words) and it gives you very little room for flexibility in role playing the character.   Either you want to "redeem" Solas or you intend stopping him anyway possible, including kill him.

 

Now you could argue that you are being simply asked to show whether your characters is compassionate or ruthless but then you get to the Keep and it is emphasised the opposite way round.    If you chose the ruthless path, then apparently you think Solas is beyond redemption (again making a moral judgement on him), while the opposite choice indicates you are going to prove him wrong (which is what you actually say to him in game, unless you are his romance).

 

To my mind this is too limited and restricted to the idea of good versus evil.    I wouldn't mind except since it is recorded in the Keep, it may have a bearing on how the Inquisitor is shown in the next game, assuming that they won't actually appear but others may talk about them.

 

The way I see it, my character is an intelligent, thoughtful sort (Solas even admits as much).    Now he could succeed in getting Solas to acknowledge his plan is evil and thus "redeem" him or alternatively he could succeed in persuading him that his plan will not result in the outcome that Solas wants, thus abandoning it.    This would not mean he was redeemed, since he would not have admitted to the moral wrongness of his previous plan, simply not stupid.

 

Conversely, if he had Solas at his mercy, he could decline to kill him because he wanted to give Solas a chance to redeem himself, thus revealing him to be compassionate and forgiving but alternatively he could withhold the killer blow simply because he realised he couldn't guarantee Solas would stay dead, thus showing I wasn't stupid.     I mean there are numerous instances that people in this game have cheated death; there is body hopping, placing a piece of your soul in an inanimate object and the one that seems the most likely for Solas, have a spirit come to your rescue and resurrect you.   Not only that but Solas has just admitted that this was the reason he decided to shut away the evanuris rather than simply kill them.

 

So I'm back to being forced to choose the "redeem" option even though I couldn't care less so long as I stop him and then have to grind my teeth when my Inquisitor is forced to say to the others that we are going to save our "friend".     To be honest he stopped being my friend the moment he revealed his past (foiled by Corypheus) and present plan for mass genocide and that despite the fact he respected me and we "deserved" better, he was still going through with it.

 

Why did we have to be forced into this good versus evil, redeemed or condemned choice?

[Almostfaceman]

In the past we have rarely been asked to pass moral judgements in our choices.   The beauty of them has been that whilst you could make a moral judgement if you wished, you could equally make the choice for practical reasons or desire for revenge or simply because it seemed like a good idea at the time.   This gave a degree of flexibility to how you played your character and could differ your decision each time you played, whilst still being able to justify it to the way you had been playing them.    Then we could all come to the forums and argue over the validity of our decision.

 

However, the Solas choice has been bugging me because there is none of that flexibility of how your interpret the decision.   Quite clearly you are asked to make a moral judgement on the character (play god in other words) and it gives you very little room for flexibility in role playing the character.   Either you want to "redeem" Solas or you intend stopping him anyway possible, including kill him.

 

Now you could argue that you are being simply asked to show whether your characters is compassionate or ruthless but then you get to the Keep and it is emphasised the opposite way round.    If you chose the ruthless path, then apparently you think Solas is beyond redemption (again making a moral judgement on him), while the opposite choice indicates you are going to prove him wrong (which is what you actually say to him in game, unless you are his romance).

 

To my mind this is too limited and restricted to the idea of good versus evil.    I wouldn't mind except since it is recorded in the Keep, it may have a bearing on how the Inquisitor is shown in the next game, assuming that they won't actually appear but others may talk about them.

 

The way I see it, my character is an intelligent, thoughtful sort (Solas even admits as much).    Now he could succeed in getting Solas to acknowledge his plan is evil and thus "redeem" him or alternatively he could succeed in persuading him that his plan will not result in the outcome that Solas wants, thus abandoning it.    This would not mean he was redeemed, since he would not have admitted to the moral wrongness of his previous plan, simply not stupid.

 

Conversely, if he had Solas at his mercy, he could decline to kill him because he wanted to give Solas a chance to redeem himself, thus revealing him to be compassionate and forgiving but alternatively he could withhold the killer blow simply because he realised he couldn't guarantee Solas would stay dead, thus showing I wasn't stupid.     I mean there are numerous instances that people in this game have cheated death; there is body hopping, placing a piece of your soul in an inanimate object and the one that seems the most likely for Solas, have a spirit come to your rescue and resurrect you.   Not only that but Solas has just admitted that this was the reason he decided to shut away the evanuris rather than simply kill them.

 

So I'm back to being forced to choose the "redeem" option even though I couldn't care less so long as I stop him and then have to grind my teeth when my Inquisitor is forced to say to the others that we are going to save our "friend".     To be honest he stopped being my friend the moment he revealed his past (foiled by Corypheus) and present plan for mass genocide and that despite the fact he respected me and we "deserved" better, he was still going through with it.

 

Why did we have to be forced into this good versus evil, redeemed or condemned choice?

 

Why do you have to be "forced" (I use this term loosely, since nobody is "forcing" you to play the game) to make any of the limited number of decisions throughout the game? Because games are limited. They have a certain story they're trying to tell. They're going to give you some room within the story, but it will be limited. If you haven't keyed onto these limitations by now, well, here's your revelation. 

[Dr. rotinaj]

We weren't forced into a good vs evil/ compassion vs ruthlessness choice at all, it's about whether Solas is capable and worthy of redemption. The decision depends on the Inquisitor's opinion of Solas as a person which is very subjective and thus inherently ambiguous.

[Rankansen]

The choice regarding Solas at the end of trespasser doesn't decide what you are going to do - there is still going to be a whole other game to play where we (presumably) battle Solas.

 

In all likelihood stating you are going to try to save or kill him won't do much but alter the dispositions of members of the (former) inquisiton and the player's encounters with them. It would make little to no sense if the outcome of the conflict with Solas was ultimately decided by a single dialogue wheel choice in the previous game.

 

That would pretty much invalidate everything we might/are going to do in DA4

[leaguer of one]

It's not about being compassionate or ruthless. The fact you label it like this means you missed the point. Actions does always equal to intentions.

 

I choose to pick the options to do what it took the stop Solas not because I could not forgive Solas but because my character would do anything to stop anything they saw in the furture in redcliffe from happening.

 

Forgiving him or not does not matter, it's fact that you may have to pick saving the world of saving a friend and it maybe need to to kill said friend to save the world.

[Uirebhiril]

Trespasser sets up what our initial choice is, but I doubt it's going to come down to something so simple as one decision at the end of a DLC. I would personally be shocked if it were so black and white as "kill/redeem y/n?" There's probably going to be layers and complexity and a big shady gray area and with it will come the decision to change our minds based on what we see and experience.

[Statare]

Trespasser sets up what our initial choice is, but I doubt it's going to come down to something so simple as one decision at the end of a DLC. I would personally be shocked if it were so black and white as "kill/redeem y/n?" There's probably going to be layers and complexity and a big shady gray area and with it will come the decision to change our minds based on what we see and experience.

 

Eh. That did not happen with Hawke so why would it happen with the Inquisitor? Unless they fundamentally change how they represent past characters by giving us control at later points or being completely ambiguous.

 

For example, my pro-mage Hawke was not gung-ho mage Freedom he just went that way because he did not want innocent people to be punished because of Anders. But that subtlety had no expression in DA2 and he became pro-mage Freedom. Similarly, I had a "responsible Blood Magic" Hawke who romanced Merrill, but at the Ritual tower she's super against Blood Magic and Blood Magic users.

 

There is a lot of precedent for the OP to be worried that the choices at the end of Trespasser will result in the Inquisitor suddenly becoming unrecognizable to them when the character is re-described in DA4. Motivation is hard to capture in a binary choice of basically "fight" or "stop", foe or friend.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Oh, this great argument always "well, you can't have EVERY possible choice, so asking for more choices makes no sense, you'll always end up being limited".

Very productive. Might as well cut choices completely. Or stop posting about what you'd like to see more of. Which makes total sense for a forum.

Such great arguments.

[Wulfram]

I do think we could have done with a middle option. Like

1. Redeem
2. Stop by any means necessary
3. Kill

As it is I find myself concerned that "any means necessary" will lead to my inquisitor being characterised as unthinkingly violent. Particularly since the writing in DAI generally seemed to favour the "nice" choices.

[Wahed89]

I didn't like the choice because of how it was worded.

Firstly, the "harsh" option is to try and "stop" him even if it means killing him. But that then implies if you take the "redeem" option that you may never decide to kill him, though it is still left open as it doesn't say what you will do if you fail to redeem him. But then it also implies that even in the harsh choice you will try and redeem/stop him peacefully and only kill him if you have to.

Ultimately the choices aren't opposites. They aren't mutually exclusive decisions or actions, or at least they aren't presented that way.

I chose to redeem, but that doesn't mean I won't kill him if I have to. But then the other option pretty much meant the same thing.

[Wulfram]

Ultimately the choices aren't opposites. They aren't mutually exclusive decisions or actions, or at least they aren't presented that way.

That may be deliberate - it allows them to have the Inquisitor show up in essentially the same role and only change their dialogue to reflect the players choice.

[leaguer of one]

That may be deliberate - it allows them to have the Inquisitor show up in essentially the same role and only change their dialogue to reflect the players choice.

Not really. Nothing is stated to how the quis would do it and where the quis would stop at their options.

 

Even the redeemer option state they would try to save Solas if they can.

[Almostfaceman]

Oh, this great argument always "well, you can't have EVERY possible choice, so asking for more choices makes no sense, you'll always end up being limited".

Very productive. Might as well cut choices completely. Or stop posting about what you'd like to see more of. Which makes total sense for a forum.

Such great arguments.

 

Point missed. The question to "why can't we have MORE choices" is the answer... games are limited. Because that IS the answer. 

 

I'm 100% positive that the developers are aware that we'd like more choices. People say it every single game. It's not like it's a secret. 

 

So, they may as well give us as many as they can, which they do. When technology catches up or business models change, they'll give us more. 'Cause that's what we want. 

 

So, keep telling them what you want, but the answer to "why can't we have more" is pretty obvious. 

[Gervaise]

No, you are misunderstanding me.  I am not asking for more choices.   It is the way the choice is interpreted that bothers me.   For example, look back at DAO and the decision whether or not to spare Loghain.   It was a simple yes or no.   You could see it as a way to redeem him.   He can even see it that way himself if you end up on good terms and he offers to take the dive for you.  However, you are not obliged to see it that way.   How other people view it is a different matter.   You personally cannot control that but I prefer to control how my character sees it, because it can vary from one to the other.

 

As has been pointed out, Hawke ended up being shown in pretty much the same way in DAI no matter how people had played him.   The main difference seemed to be in their attitude; mine alternated in being shown as jokey or more grim.   I can't remember if that how I showed them in the Keep but I suppose it must have been.

 

I agree with the fact that you can say you are going to kill someone and change your mind or vice versa.    The important thing is to stop Solas by any means you can, although I still feel that all the evidence points to the fact that you wouldn't be able to kill him and sleep easy that he wouldn't return.    Hopefully it will just determine how the Inquisitor is portrayed in the next game but then it seems a bit hard if you are defined by this one decision when it may run contrary to the general way your Inquisitor has conducted himself/herself.    If it is not important, why bother with it at all?     Just have Solas chopping your arm and leaving you and the Inquisitor resolving to find some way to stop him from going through with his plan, which then leaves it open for the next game to throw up the options.

[Almostfaceman]

No, you are misunderstanding me.  I am not asking for more choices.   It is the way the choice is interpreted that bothers me.   

 

Well I can understand that. But, in the end, leaving it so open can be a double-edged sword when the next game (chapter in the story) comes out and fans find out their "yes" means something different than their head-canon yes. 

 

So, I'd rather Bioware tell me what they're thinking up front. Softens the blow. 

[leaguer of one]

No, you are misunderstanding me.  I am not asking for more choices.   It is the way the choice is interpreted that bothers me.   For example, look back at DAO and the decision whether or not to spare Loghain.   It was a simple yes or no.   You could see it as a way to redeem him.   He can even see it that way himself if you end up on good terms and he offers to take the dive for you.  However, you are not obliged to see it that way.   How other people view it is a different matter.   You personally cannot control that but I prefer to control how my character sees it, because it can vary from one to the other.

 

As has been pointed out, Hawke ended up being shown in pretty much the same way in DAI no matter how people had played him.   The main difference seemed to be in their attitude; mine alternated in being shown as jokey or more grim.   I can't remember if that how I showed them in the Keep but I suppose it must have been.

 

I agree with the fact that you can say you are going to kill someone and change your mind or vice versa.    The important thing is to stop Solas by any means you can, although I still feel that all the evidence points to the fact that you wouldn't be able to kill him and sleep easy that he wouldn't return.    Hopefully it will just determine how the Inquisitor is portrayed in the next game but then it seems a bit hard if you are defined by this one decision when it may run contrary to the general way your Inquisitor has conducted himself/herself.    If it is not important, why bother with it at all?     Just have Solas chopping your arm and leaving you and the Inquisitor resolving to find some way to stop him from going through with his plan, which then leaves it open for the next game to throw up the options.

But interpretation is base on how you see it and the reason why you pick the choice. That's an issue on your end.

[Samahl na Revas]

Your choice won't matter, at least not the way you think it will.

[Al Foley]

Except its not a moral good/ evil choice because there are moral arguments for both.  What Solas wants to do is horrid.  So 'stopping' him is a morally righteous thing to do.  Except if you want to try and change his mind, which is also morally righteous.  

[Jandi]

Yeah... it's not really a moral choice since both have the same end result. Especially since he obviously WANTS you to make him change his mind. He really doesn't want to do it but sees no other path for himself, so he's hoping you can show him a better way. He knows nothing can ever justify the means which he is about to use, but sees no other way.

 

I see a lot of people say Solas is crazy, but he raelly isn't, at all. He sees a world ruled by petty beings that are so far below him in terms of power and understanding that they are barely above animals to him, and he has the power to change that. If you woke up one day on the planet of the apes and you had the power to bring the human race back at the cost of killing the apes, would you? That's his conundrum. To keep living in a world of monkeys or try to correct his mistake in creating said world.

 

This is what Solas saw when he woke up from his slumber.